What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5496267 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5496267?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,367.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496267?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496267?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13804792-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5496267 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5496267?

Property Damage: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord; Rent Arrears: $7,367.14 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5496267?

The primary dispute was Rent arrears. Related themes: Exemplary damages.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5496267?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/13804792-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

44A Union Street, New Brighton, Christchurch 8061 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5496267 — Rent arrears

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5496267 — net $7,035.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 June 2026	$7,367.14	Rent arrears to 25 June 2026
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,035.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,035.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ names and identifying details.
The tenancy of Hayley Maree Sutherland at 44A Union Street, New Brighton, Christchurch 8061 is terminated, and possession is granted to [the landlords], at
30am on Thursday 25 June 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [the landlords] immediately.
Hayley Maree Sutherland must pay [the landlords] $7,035.14 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This order may be enforced immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlords attended the hearing.
The landlords have applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, payment of the bond and exemplary damages.
The landlord provided rent records to prove the amount owing as ordered. The landlords lawfully increased the rent in September 2025, but the tenant continued to pay at the old rate. The tenant stopped paying rent altogether after February 2026
Because rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, the tenancy is terminated under s55(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlords claim that the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter and that she has added a chain and padlock to the gate of the premises. Relevant Law
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. A tenant must allow the landlord entry to the premises if the landlord is entitled to enter unless the tenant has a reasonable excuse for not doing so.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
A landlord must provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. Evidence, Discussion and Decision
The tenant has declined to communicate with the landlords for the past year. Previously, she questioned whether the landlords owned the premises. The landlords provided evidence of their ownership to the tenant, but she continued to assert that they were not the owners.
The landlords served two notices on the tenant in March 2025 stating that they intended inspecting the premises. The notices complied with the Act, and they entitled the landlords to enter the premises on the days given in the notices.
The tenant informed the landlords that she would not allow them to enter the premises. The tenant had no legitimate reason to refuse the landlords entry to inspect the premises and therefore she committed an unlawful act.
The tenant also put a chain around the gate at the front of the premises and padlocked it so that the gate could not be opened. That was an alteration to the locks at the premises and it too was an unlawful act.
In my view, locking the gate was an integral part of the tenant’s refusal to allow the landlords entry to the premises. It did not add anything to the tenant’s refusal to allow entry except to make it somewhat more difficult for the landlords to enter the garden of the premises. I therefore intend approaching this on the basis that there has been one unlawful act.
The tenant’s claim that the landlords did not own the premises and her failure to allow entry and to pay the rent were all illegitimate. The landlords have provided good evidence of their ownership of the premises, but they were not required to do so. It is a fundamental principle of landlord and tenant law that a tenant cannot dispute their landlord’s title. It derives from the fact that the tenant has accepted a tenancy from the landlord and therefore the tenant is prevented from questioning the landlord’s right to grant the tenancy. In any case, it is not necessary for a landlord to own the premises to have the right to grant a tenancy of them.
It follows that the tenant had no reasonable excuse to prevent the landlords from entering the premises when they had the right to do so.
By doing so, the tenant has prevented the landlords from checking the condition of the premises and ensuring that the tenant has been complying with her obligations with respect to the premises. It has also put their insurance cover at risk because landlord policies require the landlord to conduct regular inspections of the premises.
This was a serious breach, and it could have further adverse implications for the landlord. It has also been part of the considerable upset and stress that this situation has caused the landlords. A significant award of exemplary damages is therefore required, and I have awarded $1,000.
The landlords have succeeded and so I have awarded them the filing fee.
For the same reason I have granted their request for name suppression.
The bond will be paid to the landlords and the tenant must pay the remaining liability.
Given the fact that the tenant has stopped paying rent and failed to communicate with the landlords, I have directed that the landlords may enforce this order immediately.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5496267 — net $7,035.14 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Rent arrears to 25 June 2026	$7,367.14	Rent arrears to 25 June 2026
Exemplary damages	$1,000.00	Exemplary damages
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$7,035.14
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$7,035.14

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlords’ names and identifying details.
The tenancy of Hayley Maree Sutherland at 44A Union Street, New Brighton, Christchurch 8061 is terminated, and possession is granted to [the landlords], at
30am on Thursday 25 June 2026.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,360.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) to [the landlords] immediately.
Hayley Maree Sutherland must pay [the landlords] $7,035.14 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below.
This order may be enforced immediately.

Reasons

Only the landlords attended the hearing.
The landlords have applied for termination of the tenancy, rent arrears, payment of the bond and exemplary damages.
The landlord provided rent records to prove the amount owing as ordered. The landlords lawfully increased the rent in September 2025, but the tenant continued to pay at the old rate. The tenant stopped paying rent altogether after February 2026
Because rent was at least 21 days in arrears on the date the application was filed, the tenancy is terminated under s55(1)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (the Act).
The landlords claim that the tenant has not allowed them entry to the premises when they were entitled to enter and that she has added a chain and padlock to the gate of the premises. Relevant Law
A landlord may enter the premises during the tenancy with the tenant's consent, in an emergency, or after giving the required notice for inspections and repairs and maintenance. A tenant must allow the landlord entry to the premises if the landlord is entitled to enter unless the tenant has a reasonable excuse for not doing so.
Breaching this obligation without reasonable excuse is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00.
Where a party has committed an unlawful act intentionally, the Tribunal may award exemplary damages where it is satisfied it would be just to do so, having regard to the party’s intent, the effect of the unlawful act, the interests of the other party, and the public interest.
A landlord must provide and maintain locks to ensure that the premises are reasonably secure. Neither the landlord nor the tenant may alter or remove any locks without the other party's consent.
Breaching this obligation is an unlawful act for which exemplary damages may be awarded up to a maximum of $1,500.00. Evidence, Discussion and Decision
The tenant has declined to communicate with the landlords for the past year. Previously, she questioned whether the landlords owned the premises. The landlords provided evidence of their ownership to the tenant, but she continued to assert that they were not the owners.
The landlords served two notices on the tenant in March 2025 stating that they intended inspecting the premises. The notices complied with the Act, and they entitled the landlords to enter the premises on the days given in the notices.
The tenant informed the landlords that she would not allow them to enter the premises. The tenant had no legitimate reason to refuse the landlords entry to inspect the premises and therefore she committed an unlawful act.
The tenant also put a chain around the gate at the front of the premises and padlocked it so that the gate could not be opened. That was an alteration to the locks at the premises and it too was an unlawful act.
In my view, locking the gate was an integral part of the tenant’s refusal to allow the landlords entry to the premises. It did not add anything to the tenant’s refusal to allow entry except to make it somewhat more difficult for the landlords to enter the garden of the premises. I therefore intend approaching this on the basis that there has been one unlawful act.
The tenant’s claim that the landlords did not own the premises and her failure to allow entry and to pay the rent were all illegitimate. The landlords have provided good evidence of their ownership of the premises, but they were not required to do so. It is a fundamental principle of landlord and tenant law that a tenant cannot dispute their landlord’s title. It derives from the fact that the tenant has accepted a tenancy from the landlord and therefore the tenant is prevented from questioning the landlord’s right to grant the tenancy. In any case, it is not necessary for a landlord to own the premises to have the right to grant a tenancy of them.
It follows that the tenant had no reasonable excuse to prevent the landlords from entering the premises when they had the right to do so.
By doing so, the tenant has prevented the landlords from checking the condition of the premises and ensuring that the tenant has been complying with her obligations with respect to the premises. It has also put their insurance cover at risk because landlord policies require the landlord to conduct regular inspections of the premises.
This was a serious breach, and it could have further adverse implications for the landlord. It has also been part of the considerable upset and stress that this situation has caused the landlords. A significant award of exemplary damages is therefore required, and I have awarded $1,000.
The landlords have succeeded and so I have awarded them the filing fee.
For the same reason I have granted their request for name suppression.
The bond will be paid to the landlords and the tenant must pay the remaining liability.
Given the fact that the tenant has stopped paying rent and failed to communicate with the landlords, I have directed that the landlords may enforce this order immediately.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496267 — Rent arrears at 44A Union Street, New Brighton, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5496267 — Rent arrears at 44A Union Street, New Brighton, Christchurch 8061

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions